Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard from a number of Members in this House just the frustration that they feel with the allocation of resources by the government to some of the smaller communities. I know that it has been a topic that has been discussed, I think quite extensively in the last session of the Legislature and carried on through this one. I have certainly heard a number of Members express their concern about that issue. I can therefore understand why Members would feel it important to try and develop a process to deal with it, so I understand where the motion is coming from.
However, I think we need to spend a little more time looking at what is here. I am hoping that we are not going to conclude this item today, but that we have had a chance to go around the room to hear the comments that Members have made, and maybe think about it for a couple of days to see if there is not something that we can do to either amend the motion or look at doing something differently.
I have a number of problems with the process as laid out by this motion and I am hoping that we are going to have some time to address that, maybe look for some innovative ways to move this process along.
For one thing, the way that this motion is set up, and I do not think that the Members were intending this to be a very expensive operation, but the way it is set up, there is no way to say that it would not have the same sort of budget as any other special committee. I think most other special committees in this Legislature cost in excess of $1 million. I am not sure that was the intent of the Members who were trying to bring this forward.
I think we need to, as Mr. Roland said earlier, set out a timetable if we are going to move this along. I certainly, as it is laid out now, could not support it because it seems too open ended, so I think we are going to have to address that issue.
In spite of what the Premier just said in terms of the government seeing this as an issue for the Regular Members, I disagree. I would point out that the two special committees that this Assembly has established to date have had representation by Cabinet Ministers on them. I think that if you count up the number of smaller communities represented by people on Cabinet, they have at least half, if not more, within their constituencies. I think it is unseemly that we would not look for some method of broadening the representation to make sure that if we were going to establish this kind of committee, there was some kind of representation from Cabinet.
I think if we are going to take a look at changing the structure of this House by establishing a committee, it is important that all Members participate because it is not just a Regular Member's issue. It is an issue that we are establishing a committee of the Legislature and recommendations that come back and get adopted by any committee become owned by the Legislature. It is not something that is owned by just one side of the House or the other.
I am a bit troubled by the process here, in how it has come to pass. I worry that we might be setting a precedent. If the not-so-large, tax-based communities feel that they are not being treated well because we have a committee representing the smallest communities, and there is a feeling that the largest community, being Yellowknife, has enough Members to form its own committee, we are liable to just divide the whole Legislature up into different camps. I think we have to find a way to deal with the process. I am not sure we have found that with the way that the terms of reference are set out here.
The one thing that really causes me some concern, and I have heard a number of Members today speak about item (a) at the bottom of the motion, which says that the committee will conduct its business in a manner approved by the committee in accordance with the Rules of the Legislative Assembly, which does not impinge or encroach on the mandate of any existing standing or special committee.
Yet much of what I have heard the Members speak about relate to things like the capital plan. If we are going to talk about specific issues, as Mr. Lafferty did -- he mentioned the number of $10 million, for instance. If we are going to get into that level of discussion, we are actually dealing now with a discussion that should be happening at the existing standing/special committees through the business plan and review of draft mains.
So there is a problem with me understanding. I have to tell you I really do not understand how the mandate of this committee meshes or would mesh with the other three standing committees. I think we are going to have to put some thought to that rather than dealing with this today. I think we have to find a way to examine just how this could possibly work with the other committees that we have.
Mr. Chairman, as I said when I started, I am hoping that the intention is not to conclude this item today. Instead, to allow Members an opportunity -- and I think most of us have had that opportunity now -- to make comment on the issue. I think it is time now for us to put it aside for a couple of days, think about it and see what sort of compromise or an approach we can come up with that will answer the questions that have been raised and deal with the issues that are seen from the Members from the smaller communities and the Members who represent the larger communities and see if we can find some middle ground. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.